Biblical literalism and the story of creation

AV1611VET · #41 10th July 2009, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Skaloop

Also, could you please answer my questions about walking on water.

Originally Posted by Skaloop

Did he walk on it as if it were a solid surface, or did he sink into it as if it were soft (like, say, sand)? When he walked, was he propelling himself as we do when we walk on land, by pushing back against the surface? If so, how did he create friction against the liquid water to propel himself forward? Did the bottoms of his feet get wet? Was he supporting himself on the surface of the water (with his powers) or was he strengthening the surface tension to support his weight?

In my opinion --- and I wasn't there (like that would have mattered) --- He demonstrated His mastery over nature by simply showing that, with God, there is no physical relationship between the natural world and the divine.

I believe He got His feet wet, I believe surface tension, capillary action, and pressure (downward and upward) had no effect.

Water clinging to His feet would have shown cohesion, and I even believe there was the sound of splashing.

Waves hitting Him split.

How that went down --- I haven't a clue.

Jester4kicks · #42 10th July 2009, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Is a clear soup water or not water? For example, sugar water.
Is water vapor water or not water?

If I say: the spirit is like water. Then what does the water mean? Does it have only one ONE meaning?

Clear soup is clear soup.
Sugar water is sugar water.
Water vapor is water vapor.

Make sense?

When you say something is like something else, you are using analogy and metaphor.

Jester4kicks · #43 10th July 2009, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

I guess you want to hear "a reason" that the Bible can be understood in a literal way.

To a believer, the Bible is "God's word". That is a good enough reason. Even some of His words "should" be understood metaphorically, it does not negate the said reason.

I understand that, to many, the bible is the word of god. I also understand that there are times where the bible contains obvious analogies or metaphors.

What I am asking of those who believe the bible should be interpretted literally, and specifically the story of creation, is why they think the story of creation was meant to be interpretted literally. It's a very strong position to take, so I would think that here would be at least some kind of foundation behind it.

So far, nobody has shown any basis for that particular type of interpretation.

Jester4kicks · #44 10th July 2009, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Or walking on water?

Why is it that non-literalists are always asking for explanations for such things as Embedded Age and creatio ex nihilo, and not the obvious walking on water?

It's easier to accuse someone of making up terms than it is to accuse them of having faith in something that goes against nature, isn't it?

Hello again, AV! Have you decided to just avoid the questions I asked you? As I previously said, I would rather avoid these combative tangents and focus on the OP.

AV1611VET · #45 10th July 2009, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Jester4kicks

Hello again, AV! Have you decided to just avoid the questions I asked you? As I previously said, I would rather avoid these combative tangents and focus on the OP.

Fair enough --- /thread.

Nathan Poe · #46 10th July 2009, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

In my opinion --- and I wasn't there (like that would have mattered) --- He demonstrated His mastery over nature by simply showing that, with God, there is no physical relationship between the natural world and the divine.

That would undermine the entire point of Jesus's mission on Earth -- to reestablish a relationship between the natural world and the divine.

Jesus was every bit a part of the natural world -- and subject to its laws far more often than he chose to circumvent them. He was born of a woman, he grew up and aged naturally, he was capabloe of feeling hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, and death.

The relationship, as you are so fond of continually stating, is that the natural world is obedient to the divine -- a theme which is more or less a given in heroic/divine myths.

I believe He got His feet wet, I believe surface tension, capillary action, and pressure (downward and upward) had no effect.

Water clinging to His feet would have shown cohesion, and I even believe there was the sound of splashing.

Waves hitting Him split.

How that went down --- I haven't a clue.

This would be a case where "Goddidit" would be a perfectly acceptable answer -- we are talking about a myth, after all.

Jester4kicks · #47 12th July 2009, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Fair enough --- /thread.

Wow! You managed to get shut down with a single reply? Admitedly, I never expected anyone to say "oh, you're right, there's no basis for it".... but I expected at least some kind of minimal foundation for it.

This is actually kind of amazing... since pretty much everything AV posts in the particular section is based on a literal interprettation of the story of creation... everything he says in here has just been proven to be 100% baseless.

Granted, we were kind of at that point before... but that was a matter of debating the validity of an entire book. Now we've determined that he has no foundation for the particular interpretation he has chosen.

If I'm wrong here, AV... you're still welcome to correct me. However, I asked some very basic questions in the OP and in my reply to you... and nobody has been able to answer them.

AV1611VET · #48 12th July 2009, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Jester4kicks

I asked some very basic questions in the OP and in my reply to you... and nobody has been able to answer them.
Originally Posted by Jester4kicks

1) I'm not aware of any scripture that specifically directs people to read the bible in a literal fashion, let alone the stoy of creation, itself.

God says ---

Originally Posted by Isaiah 45:18-19

18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

An allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 allows for almost any heresy to apply: evolution, panspermia, Big Bang, alien experiment, oscillating universe, and more.

But a literal interpretation forces even those hostile to the Bible to admit that It says God did it.

Alunyel · #49 12th July 2009, 05:36 PM

One thing I've always found weird in Genesis is the first few lines.

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The first things God created were "the heaven and the earth", I don't know if it's just the site I'm reading it off, but it distinctly says "earth", not "Earth", does that mean that the first thing God created was the soil? If it was referring to Earth as a planet, then it would be a pronoun.

"2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

All I really get from this, is that water existed on Earth, which had no light, so far, and God was floating above it.

Here's where it gets odd.

"3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

After Earth already existed, God created the stars. When he said "Let there be light" and he uses that light to make day and night, then that light can only be the Sun. At which time, he'd have to create all of the stars in the universe at the same moment, because they all give night and day to their solar systems.

But that's not the really odd thing. Earth already exists by this moment, but we know that planets are formed from the heavy elements that are created in stars from the fusion of H and He atoms that generates heat and light energy. Genesis essentially says the the planets existed before the stars, but it's the stars that create the planets. The way stars and planets form makes it impossible for planets to be exist before stars.

Stars are created when hydrogen and helium atoms gravitate towards each other, in huge clouds in space. As the clouds get more dense, their gravitational pull increases, compressing the cloud and attracting more hydrogen and helium. As they get denser, these atoms collide more, which causes them to move faster and faster, which is why compressed gasses generate heat. Eventually, the H and He atoms are moving so fast that when they collide with another, they fuse together, the resulting fusion releases HUGE amounts of energy, which is what causes the big balls of H and He to burn. As they fuse, the simple H and He atoms become heavier atoms, and it's these heavier atoms that become planets, meteors, moons, water and everything else in space.

We know this process happens, fusion is a process we understand pretty well. We made the prediction that if this was the case, we'd be able to look at the cosmic microwave background of the universe and what we would see are patchy clouds of varying temperatures, with the denser parts of the clouds generating more heat energy. We looked and that's exactly what we found. We can also see huge cloouds in space, where there hasn't been enough atoms to make the cloud dense enough and the gravitational pull strong enough for fusion to occur.

It's impossible for planets to exist before stars. It's the stars that generate the heavy elements that are required to form planets. These heavier elements are drawn together through gravity to become planets. That's why you get the denser, heavier elements nearer the centre of planets and the lighter elements nearer the crust.

Assyrian · #50 12th July 2009, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Originally Posted by Jester4kicks

1) I'm not aware of any scripture that specifically directs people to read the bible in a literal fashion, let alone the stoy of creation, itself.

God says ---

Originally Posted by Isaiah 45:18-19

18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

Umm AV, what has that got to do with having to read scripture literally? The passage speaks of God's word being fulfilled, not of it all being literal.

An allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 allows for almost any heresy to apply: evolution, panspermia, Big Bang, alien experiment, oscillating universe, and more.

But a literal interpretation forces even those hostile to the Bible to admit that It says God did it.

Sounds like a circular argument to me. You think these are heresies because you interpret Genesis literally, so you think the literal interpretation is important because it it contradicts what you think of as heresies.